Citation Nr: 1322908 Decision Date: 07/18/13 Archive Date: 07/24/13 DOCKET NO. 10-06 748 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Jackson, Mississippi THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a back injury. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Bridgid D. Cleary, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from December 1973 to April 1974, with additional periods of inactive duty for training (IDT) service in the Reserves. This matter has come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2009 rating decision of the Jackson, Mississippi, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This appeal was processed using the Virtual VA paperless claims processing system. Accordingly, any future consideration of this appellant's case should take into consideration the existence of this electronic record. While the Veteran was represented by counsel at the RO, counsel filed a motion to withdraw representation at the Board and this motion was granted. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.608. This appeal is REMANDED to the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office. VA will notify the appellant if further action is required. REMAND The Veteran claims that his current back disability is due to an injury during inactive duty for training (IDT). The record shows an injury during IDT in November 1975 that was determined to be in the line of duty. See January 1976 Line of Duty Determination Letter. Specifically, hospital records from November 1975 show treatment for back sprain due to an accident during inactive duty for training. The Veteran underwent a January 2009 VA examination. The examiner reviewed the entire claims file, discussed the Veteran's history of back pain and considered the injury during IDT. Ultimately, this examiner opined that it was less likely as not that the Veteran's current back disability was related to his military service, noting the fifteen year gap in complaints of or treatment for a back disability between 1978 and 1993. In his VA Form 9, the Veteran takes issue with the dates cited by the VA examiner for his IDT injury and his back surgery. Based on a review of the record, the Board finds that November 1975 is when the Veteran was treated for a back injury during IDT. Private treatment records dated August 1977 note the Veteran's complaints of low back pain following an injury at work a few days prior. He was treated on an out-patient basis without improvement and was thereafter admitted to the hospital. He was diagnosed with lumbosacral strain. Additional information has been received since the January 2009 VA examination, including medical treatises and lay evidence. Specifically, the Veteran has submitted lay statements from friends and fellow service members that note the Veteran's decreased physical ability since his injury. To the extent that any specific symptoms are cited, many of these statements refer to a limp that the Veteran has had since service. See e.g., Statements from M.S., H.N., and S.F. The Board notes that the Veteran reported cramps in his legs and foot trouble on his March 1974 Report of Medical History, prior to his IDT injury and also reported cramps in legs in March 1978 (the examiner did not note a limp at the time). An addendum opinion is necessary to determine the relationship, if any, between the Veteran's inservice injury and current back disability. This examiner is also asked to address the newly-submitted medical treatises and to comment on whether the corrected dates for the Veteran's IDT back injury and back surgery alter his prior opinion in any way. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Refer the Veteran's claims folder to the January 2009 VA examiner or, if he is unavailable, to another suitably qualified VA examiner for the purpose of obtaining an addendum opinion. The examiner is asked to consider the medical treatise information submitted by the Veteran, including the Merck Manual, the Kinkade article, the Goldman article, and the overview of the Gautschi article, as well as any other relevant medical literature prior to offering an opinion on the following questions. Likewise, the examiner is directed to consider whether the dates of injury (November 1975) and intervening back injury at work (August 1977) impact his opinion. Specifically, the VA examiner should indicate whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., probability of 50 percent or greater) that the Veteran's current back disability had its onset in service or is otherwise the result of disease or injury during service, including the claim of a limp since the injury in service (which the Veteran and his acquaintances claim has existed since the inservice injury and was not noted by the examiner in March 1978). . All opinions should be accompanied by clear rationale consistent with the evidence of record. If the examiner cannot respond without resorting to speculation, it should be explained why a response would be speculative. 2. After the development requested above has been completed to the extent possible, the RO should again review the record. If the benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the Veteran and representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and given the opportunity to respond thereto. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2012). _________________________________________________ THOMAS J. DANNAHER Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2012).